If freedom is absence from government interference, then in a capitalist system there is indeed a tradeoff between freedom and equality.
Once one correctly understands that the government is the sole "SOURCE" of the net money supply in the economy, not a "user" of the money, needing taxation and borrowing as funding mechanisms, the relationship between it and consumers/savers changes drastically.
To the left, is there something intrinsically evil about Lebron James being better at basketball than me? If not, what is evil about Elon Musk being better at capitalism than me (so far)?
If either uses their wealth to gain unfair access to the government and allowed to influence its policy to accumulate more wealth it is evil in terms of the best interests of the majority. When we can get beyond the concept of their "funding" of our government and approach the economy from a framework of reality we can make them both irrelevant to the public purpose.
I can almost guarantee that both would pay more tax if that were the case, but it would not change government's ability to fund itself or the public purpose. There is no "infinite+1" in math that would better enable that ability.
Why focus on monetary policy? Because it is literally how money is made and distributed.
Money created by private sector bank debt is always zero-sum. It cannot net retire the debt that created it. Only high power money created by Congress' deficit spending can do so, or be net saved as a store of value from our commerce.
Monetary policy has its purpose, but that is limited and not quickly reactive to economic swings or the business cycle. In fact, many economists see the common thought of higher interest rates as a tool against inflation as being inflationary itself and contributing to inequality.
It injects more money into the economy via higher bond yields just when it can be most harmful. It greatly favors the banking industry and the investment class, which is why the mistaken perception is so persistent. Fiscal policy, with higher taxation and spending cut backs are much more effective against inflation and inequality.
In the 1970s, the US economy experienced stagflation, or high unemployment and high inflation. This contradicted the Keynesian notion of a Philips Curve, where there was a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
The inflation of the '70s was, much like we see today, a problem of extreme increases in a commodity that is central to our economy, energy. Everything that was produced relied upon oil and it became short in supply and higher in price during the oil cartel's embargo. The increases in the money supply were a following event to enable the purchase of the higher priced energy, not the cause of the inflation.
The monetarists, led by Milton Friedman, argued that this was due to the fact that in the long run, increases in the money supply lead to increases in inflation:
Some would argue that the government, as the monopoly issuer of the net currency in the economy, cannot create inflation until all potential resources and labor are utilized/committed and its spending exceeds that natural limit of productivity. They understand that it is those resources and labor that determine price, not the quantity of money in the economy.
Recognizing the government as the source of our net sovereign fiat currency also dispels the notion of "crowding out" investment with its spending and bond issues. The government can be viewed rightly as the "price setter" for anything it purchases, which can include anything that is available for sale and denominated in US dollars, including any labor the private sector doesn't utilize.
The central bank can engage in “quantitative easing” which is a form of “printing money”
QE only restores previously created money back to reserves by destroying bonds those reserves were previously used to purchase. Only the fact that bonds aren't counted in the M1/M2 money supply makes it appear that money is created. Bonds and reserves both represent "obligations" to Treasury and "assets" to the private sector.
Think of it as moving money from savings to checking in your personal banking process. Outside the parameters of creating reserves by loan creation (always balanced by a repayment contract), your bank doesn't "create" any money in your checking or savings accounts and merely changes your access to those.
But if the goal is to stimulate economic activity by decreasing deflation/increasing inflation during a recession (due to the fact that the velocity of money has collapsed), then why not simply pass out a temporary universal basic income directly to everyone in the country?
This works, in theory, but is still somewhat clumsy and behind the curve in being responsive to changes in the business cycle. Why not, instead, make the currency-issuing federal government the employer of last resort.
Once initiated, a guaranteed job program would set a bottom for private-sector wages and benefits while also providing a stable of workers with their social skills intact when the private sector needs to re-employ them. Cutting wages and benefits of such a program would be political suicide, so it would be removed from the whims and and propaganda of politicians.
The program could be best administered by local and state governments, but it would be important that it is funded with new money creation at the federal level. This offers an immediate injection of money that is countercyclical to the business cycle where and when it is needed. It also offers a labor force that can be utilized by communities in many ways.
Those communities, free to define "job" as anything they wish, could tailor the program to the talents and abilities of the participants. Many might simply stay within the program if it offers a dignified wage and benefit level. I feel that there are a large number of citizens that aren't motivated as much by economic gains as they are by service to others.
A very important point I would like to make is that this form of monetary policy would actually not only redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but more importantly redistribute wealth from the financial sector to other sectors of the economy.
This presumption is dependent upon the ability of politicians to progressively tax their largest donors. How's that workin for ya so far??
If only there was someone courageous enough to fly a helicopter full of cash across the entire country. I’m speaking to you, Jerome Powell.
I would prefer that someone to have authority to create money that doesn't require repayment and is mandated to do so "for the general welfare". That would be only Congress. I would also prefer that the policy would be able to address regional and long term deficiencies of capitalism, which is not accomplished by a "one size fits all" UBI.
A guarantee of a job that pays a minimum wage to be considered "livable", along with necessary benefits, that also sets the bar for private sector employers without requiring constant political action would be my preference.
